|
|
|
3rd July 2021, 05:31 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,191
|
Quote:
Thank you Kubur, I thought that thrust was what was meant, but wanted to be clear. The swords used across the steppes by nomadic tribes were originally long straight swords, but the prevalence of slashing cuts from horseback often in movement led to the evolution of the saber or curved blade. As these tribes, moved westward some of these sabers developed the widening at the tip, which we now term the yelman. While these Turkic tribes spread into varied regions, the yelman remained with those moving into what is now Turkey (giving us the kilij type saber known as the pala, while the kilij itself had less of this feature. In Persia however, the sharply radiused to point blade known as the shamshir, clearly without yelman, was the preferred form. Here I would point out that the yelman was not (as sometimes presumed) added for thrusting, in fact as I was told by a Polish fencing master and arms historian regarding Polish sabers used in 17th c, the yelman was to add weight to the distal end of the blade to add impetus to the slashing cut (as previously noted by Norman). There were examples as Norman pointed out with the British in the ever present effort to combine cut and thrust, with these 'quill points'. The Polish expert also noted, almost humorously, that in fact the 'yelman' was termed 'the feather' expressly regarding its purpose to add weight to the cut. Here I would note that East European sword blades and forms were adapted from the Turkic models, which of course included the yelman. In the type of combat typical of mounted forces, the thrust is seldom used as the dynamics and movement inherent in those situations mostly negate the potential for thrusting, as well as leaving the rider either momentarily or longer , without a weapon, and wide open for being attacked without defense. Again, this is the purpose and advantage of cutting blades, and the human inclination long standing, of hacking cuts with swords. Although the thrust was, as long agreed, far more deadly, it had those kinds of drawbacks in application and opportunity. The Ottoman's and cases of others, typically used sabers in slashing cuts, not for thrusting, but as I mentioned, there were some narrow (rapier like) bladed swords known as 'mec' used in dismounted fighting (in Europe these were the estoc, mounted under the saddle, also called a 'tuck'). With the 'pata', you are hardly alone, and there is always consternation about the use of these distinctive transverse grip weapons. In reality, it very much 'depends' on regional preferences in accord with tribal or ethnic circumstances as well as of course, the time period and circumstances. While it is possible they may have found thrusting use, it was most likely incidental and not usual. Here I would add that in material on the khanda (Hindu basket hilt, also 'firangi') at European contact, the introduction of European blades (firangi) in addition to enhancing the hilt provided some blades of rapier form. While these were used in some cases on the Indian khanda, they were more a novelty as 'the thrust was virtually unknown in Indian swordsmanship (I cannot recall the exact references but think it was Pant, 1980). As noted, the transverse grip is an anomaly in the character of most edged weapons, and its development is unclear though long studied. It is generally thought it evolved from perhaps the cases on shields (held transversely) which had spear points on the boss, and could be used for stabbing. This also was seen on the Indian parrying wesapon called the madu (joined opposing blades for alternate slashing) with a central stabbing blade. The katar (actual term jamhdhar) developed in southern India, where these transverse grip daggers were perhaps intended for both slashing and stabbing (they had triangular blades) but evolved into heavier bladed form to which a gauntlet type 'hood' was added for hand protection. As the form diffused into regions to the west, with the Mahrattas, and blades became longer, the PATA evolved as a sword rather than the katar, which remained in dagger accord. As I had noted, the Mahratta disdained the thrust, considering it abhorrent and for lack of better explanation, unworthy of the skills of a warrior. As the pata came into presence with Rajputs as well as in cases, Mughals, the use of them seems to have retained the slashing preference. While it is known these are seen in miniatures (art) held by riders on horseback, these depictions characterize parade or ceremonial situations typically. In battle situations (noting the typical license in such artwork) I do not recall seeing them shown in thrusting, and would be skeptical if they were. The use of a sword in a thrust in a 'charge' is suspect on the face of it. At impact, the rider would be either unhorsed by the dynamic result of the impalement of the target at best, or weaponless in the least result. The lance was used as a shock weapon, and expected to be lost in the initial collision with enemy forces, where in the melee they were useless anyway. I realize I have turned this into a bit of a treatise  but I wanted to express my own understanding of these areas in hopes you and others might find the information useful if agreed, or of course add views opposing if not. It is a lot of material, bit I think salient in the understanding of the curiously angled hilts on these Georgian (and Tatar) sabers. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 3rd July 2021 at 07:30 PM. |
|
|
|
|
3rd July 2021, 06:49 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,116
|
Cut versus thrust, the eternal argument. My contribution is that Brevet Major William Stephen Raikes Hodson, one of the deadliest swordsmen in history, preferred to cut from horseback, but regarded the thrust as the best technique when on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
4th July 2021, 08:10 AM
|
#3 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
4th July 2021, 12:02 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,116
|
The "quill point" on a George IV 1822 patt. NCO sword. In this case I thinks it's to aid the thrust. These 1822 NCO swords retained the fullered blade with a quill point until the end of the pattern being in use, quite distinct from the commissioned officers version
|
|
|
|
|
4th July 2021, 01:54 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,613
|
Quote:
Hi, Quill points survived in Infantry swords, e.g. this French quill point 1845/55 pattern infantry sword of mine is dated 1915 and yes I would think this was to give strength to the point. In the case of cavalry swords I would suggest the original idea was to bring forward the centre of percussion to give the best optimum cut and reach. There is no doubt in my mind that a yelman originally intended to better serve the cut, even British 1796 L.C. sabres have a 'pseudo yelman' in that the blade is wider at the tip and these blades were well known for their cutting ability. Some yelmans even have a weighted section see the photograph of an Austrian sabre of mine which does not have a sharpened back edge, there is no doubt a fashionable element to this sword but believe me it's still a limb remover. A lot of yelmans are double edged which no doubt helps in the thrust but it also helps for upward/backward cuts on horseback. I have a Wilkinson P1821 cavalry officers sword on which the CoP is marked on the spine of the blade and the spearpoint is sharpened on both sides. No doubt fashion contributed to a degree the continued use of the quill point into the 20thC and the yelman on European swords of the 19thC. My Regards, Norman. |
|
|
|
|
|
4th July 2021, 10:19 PM
|
#6 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,191
|
Kubur, I thank you so much for such kind words.
Regarding the yelman, as I noted, its original purpose in the slashing sabers of the 17th and 18th century was to add weight (kinetic energy) to the cut. As Norman and David have further explained, as the importance of the thrust became well recognized, there were efforts to utilize the point widening with sharpened edges on both sides, what is known as a clipped point in most sabers and single edged swords. With the widened point (yelman) on the Turkish swords, which are too wide for any thrust penetration, these provide cutting surface for a back stroke, a cut made at the end of another with a turn of the wrist, simply in reverse. The 'quill points' were popular in the period of innovation with British swords, from the time of the 'sword scandals' of 1780s until the 1820s, where the new blades had spear points but still key cutting edge. With the 1796 swords, while the light cavalry had the heavy 'psuedo yelman' Norman mentions (called a hatchet point)....the straight heavy cavalry swords also had a curve at the point of 'hatchet' form, but not widened. When the 'Scots Greys' were being sent to Belgium in what became the famed Battle of Waterloo, they were ordered to grind down the points of their swords to a spear point. We may presume this was in response to the recognition of the importance of the thrust, however, the swords still in action, were used in hacking cuts only during the battle. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
